Re: Missing notes, was Re: Notes from the Git Contributors' Summit 2021, virtual, Oct 19/20

[Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3919 bytes --]

Team,

I tried to reply with the full notes, which failed. So I'll try again,
this time in chunks.

On Fri, 22 Oct 2021, Johannes Schindelin wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 21 Oct 2021, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>
> > Team,
> >
> > we held our second all-virtual Summit over the past two days. It was the
> > traditional unconference style meeting, with topics being proposed and
> > voted on right before the introduction round. It was really good to see
> > the human faces behind those email addresses.
> >
> > 32 contributors participated, and we spanned the timezones from PST to
> > IST. To make that possible, the event took place on two days, from
> > 1500-1900 UTC, which meant that the attendees from the US West coast had
> > to get up really early, while it was past midnight in India at the end.
> >
> > I would like to thank all participants for accommodating the time, and in
> > particular for creating such a friendly, collaborative atmosphere.
> >
> > A particular shout-out to Jonathan Nieder, Emily Shaffer and Derrick
> > Stolee for taking notes. I am going to send out these notes in per-topic
> > subthreads, replying to this mail.
> >
> > Day 1 topics:
> >
> > * Crazy (and not so crazy) ideas
> > * SHA-256 Updates
> > * Server-side merge/rebase: needs and wants?
> > * Submodules and how to make them worth using
> > * Sparse checkout behavior and plans
> >
> > Day 2 topics:
> >
> > * The state of getting a reftable backend working in git.git
> > * Documentation (translations, FAQ updates, new user-focused, general
> >   improvements, etc.)
> > * Let's have public Git chalk talks
>
> You might wonder why I did not send out the notes for this talk.
>
> But that is not true! I sent it 6 times already, in various variations,
> and it never came through (but I did get two nastygrams telling me that my
> message was rejected because it apparently triggered a filter).

This session was led by Emily Shaffer. Supporting cast: Ævar Arnfjörð
Bjarmason, brian m. carlson, CB Bailey, and Junio Hamano.

Notes:

 1.  What’s a public chalk talk?

     1.  At Google, once a week, the team meets up with no particular topic in
         mind, or a couple topics, very informal

     2.  One person’s turn each week to give an informal talk with a white
         board (not using chalk)

     3.  Topic should be technical and of interest to the presenter

     4.  For example: how does protocol v2 work

     5.  Collaborative, interactive user session

     6.  Helps by learning about things

     7.  Helps by honing skills like presentation skills

     8.  A lot of (good) humility involved. For example, colleagues who have
         been familiar with the project for a long time admitting they don’t
         know, or have been wrong about things. Makes others feel more
         comfortable with their perceived lack of knowledge

     9.  Could be good for everybody on the Git mailing list, might foster less
         combative communication on the list

     10. Might be a way to attract new people by presenting “old timers” as
         humble

 2.  Does that appeal to anybody else?

to be continued...

>
> I shall keep trying, but my hopes are pretty low by now.
>
> Ciao,
> Johannes
>
> > * Increasing diversity & inclusion (transition to `main`, etc)
> > * Improving Git UX
> > * Improving reviewer quality of life (patchwork, subsystem lists?, etc)
> >
> > A few topics were left for a later date (maybe as public Git chalk talks):
> >
> > * Making Git memory-leak free (already landed patches)
> > * Scaling Git
> > * Scaling ref advertisements
> > * Config-based hooks (and getting there via migration ot hook.[ch] lib &
> >   "git hook run")
> > * Make git [clone|fetch] support pre-seeding via downloaded *.bundle files
> >
> > Ciao,
> > Johannes
> >
>